Report on “On some methods of strengthening Bell’s theorem using counterfactuals”
I believe this paper would be a useful contribution to the literature pertaining to this important question of whether Bell’s theorems can be strengthened by replacing the reality (hidden-variable) assumptions by counterfactuals. However, a number of statements are misleading or not adequately justified.
- In the abstract it is asserted that “With proper attention paid to the semantics of counterfactuals, as well as to the formulation of thecounterfactual locality condition, it becomes clear the Stapp’s proof falls short of establishing its conclusion due to an unwarranted assumption unjustified referred to as a “locality condition”. Actually, the attention paid to the semanticsof counterfactuals does not address the essential question of whether the proven facts “that (4.4) is true, while (4.5) is false” entails a faster-than-light transfer of causally efficacious information. Also, the phrase “the formulation of the counterfactual locality condition” begs the key question by making it appear that there can be only one single locality condition, whereas Stapp’s argument depends explicitly and critically on his use of two different conditions, only one of which is essentially “the counterfactual locality condition” that the author refers to. The author tacitly assumes throughout that this one locality condition that he formulates is the only possible one, and but never shows that Stapp is wrong when he claims that the proven facts “that (4.4) is true, while (4.5) is false” entail a violationof the demand that no causally efficacious information can be transferred faster than the speed of light. Stapp is submitting a short paper,intended to be published with the paper being reviewed here, that argues strongly in support of this claim. If the author can present a rationally coherent refutation of that argument then he should do so, perhaps in an appendix. Otherwise, he should revise his paper to take account of Stapp’s argument. The author’s careful and more detailed redoing of Stapp’s 1997 argument should help to resolve the still-unresolvedbut important question of whether this use of counterfactuals can really succeed in establishing the logical need for faster-than-light transfer of information.
- On page 3 the author says: “I shall present a precise semantic argument showing that Stapp’s proof cannot possibly be recovered using only the uncontroversial version of the locality condition (LOC1). But Stapp’s LOC2 is not a version of his LOC1: it is an altogether different locality condition. Indeed, it is better never to talk about LOC2/STLOC, but, instead, to work directly from the conjunction of the pair of proven facts that (4.4) is true and (4.5) is false. This tack circumvents the controversies raging over the introduction of the general principle LOC2, by using instead of a general, and false, assumption, only the proven particulars.
If the author revises his paper to take into account Stapp’s comments, then those comments on it may need revising. But Stapp’s strong defense of his position warrants
exposure. The author’s comments upon that defense, pro or con, would be interesting.
Perhaps some further clarification of the issues raised in the paper being reviewed could be generated.